> Not a good look for the Pentagon.

It's now the Department of War and war isn't known for its concern about looking good.

We all know how this will end, they know it too - both sides - ergo, it's a clear case of blame washing - Anthropic will do everything they're told but will keep a smiley face and the image of a "fighter for the people". DOW will absorb the blame like a sponge and will ask for more, not necessarily from Anthropic.

> It's now the Department of War

(By the National Security Act of 1947 and its 1949 amendment, it is the Department of Defense, and nothing short of an act of congress changes that. The executive order secondarily naming it the department of war has as much legal weight as my personal order naming it the Department of Brainrot or Whatever.)

This reminds me of that scene where Ned Stark goes and shows a legal document to Cersei and she tears up the piece of paper. It’s DoW because all the official documents, websites, buildings, communications, whatever say it’s DoW, everyone in the chain calls it DoW, etc. Some piece of paper from 1949 doesn’t change that.

Exactly. POSIWID, the "purpose of a system is what it does".

The administration proudly call it that, formal documents call it that, and war they wage. It is a Department of War.

A remarkable exception of non-doublespeak nowadays.

You're not wrong, indeed the Constitution is some piece of paper from the late 18th century because all three branches of government have been captured by a group of weirdo influencers and podcasters.

Point stands though that the 'pieces of paper' are special, even if the people handling them are lawless. In the long term, cosplaying it as Department of War is just that.

All the more important for people who value the rule of law to continue to call it the Department of Defense. Executive power ultimately depends on acceptance and compliance. Corrupt and unconstitutional actions are only legitimized by collective acceptance

The Pentagon is pretty high on my list of "institutions that are probably very interested in weapons and surveillance". I think it's more expected than a bad look

The core difference being, they should be interested in weapons and surveillance to be used against enemies of the state which, historically, is not supposed to be the country's own citizens.

As in, I fully expect the pentagon to be interested in weapons. I do not expect, and would hope they don't pursue, mass surveillance against their own population.

You really should expect it. FVEY has been around for a hot minute.

The important words are, American citizens. In times past, the thought of "waging war" against your own citizens would be a bad look.

When was that?

It probably started with the Third Amendment to the Constitution, continued with the Posse Comitatus Act, and was alive and well last November under the leadership of Mark Kelly.

Their unwillingness to bend on those requirements seems like an admission that they are very interested in those things, if not already doing them.

A couple of years ago the Netherlands accidentally bombed an Iraqi village off the map after getting some questionable intel from the US. Not a single American ever gave a shit but it was a little bit of a scandal for the Dutch government- which was quickly fixed in the typical Dutch way of transferring some money to the victims.

I just don't see how AI dropping the bombs is going to make anything worse.

> I just don't see how AI dropping the bombs is going to make anything worse

A lot more bombs, and claims of the targets being based on intelligence. Essentially what seems to have resulted in the destruction of Gaza.